ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 5970
Feb 8 10 11:33 AM
Five Years Later wrote:And you can't just get some dummy director in there who says, "oh...I never read Sgt. Rock comics, I'm just doing this as I see fit, blah blah blah~~" like comic book film directors always say. Where have you been for the last decade? I can't believe that you claim that comic book film directors never read the comics. The reason this story is so weird is because we've all grown to expect a significant amount of adherence to the source material. This seems like something that would have happened in the 1980s or early 1990s. In 2010 it just seems stupid - and rightfully so. Also: everyone wants to think Rock was just a perverse war-monger who relished his time spent with a gun, blowing away Krauts. Who are you talking about? I don't think anyone who's read one SGT. ROCK story would think that. I think you're reading way more into this story than actually exists. It seems simple to me. Investors aren't willing to take the financial risk needed to make a big budget action film set in WWII. Complaining about it isn't going to change anything. And I don't think anyone should take this as an insult. It's just the way it is. Maybe in 10 years a WWII film will be popular. Who knows? Again, the weird thing about this is using Sgt. Rock (and I'm guessing the supporting characters) to do a futuristic film. It really doesn't make sense and violates the key aspect of Sgt. Rock. The problem isn't that investors don't have faith in Sgt. Rock in WWII, the problem is that they're wasting their time (and dollars) to do Sgt. Rock in the future. I guess I'm tired of using Hollywood as a whipping boy for all that's wrong in the world. There's no way I'm going to defend them for this idiocy but the underlying assumption that they all hate the USA or are ashamed of the soldiers is off base.
Share This